Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Improving the abilities of students with disabilities is a difficult task. Students with disabilities strive to be successful academically in the content areas of reading, writing, and mathematical concepts. Teachers can use technology to individualize and differentiate instruction for students who need the assistance and support. Vocaroo, Quick Response codes, Plickers, Screencast-O-Matic, Padlet, Storybird, Bookshare, Bubbl.us, Kahoot, and Newsela are differentiated technological instructional tools available for teachers to use to assist students with disabilities in multiple areas of learning difficulty. Vocaroo and Quick Response codes provide reading alternatives, interactivity, and engaging options. Plickers and Kahoot are assessment tools. Screencast-O-Matic digitally videos the lesson for student review at later times. Storybird, Bookshare, and Newsela are online, leveled reading options. Padlet helps students create and collaborate to demonstrate their knowledge in an alternative manner. Bubbl.us is an online mapping tool. Using these technological tools to accommodate and differentiate instructional lessons provides students with 21st-century skills as well as addresses the process, product, and pace of differentiation basics.

Keywords

Technology differentiation accommodations individualized instruction reading mathematics writing support tools

Because educational accountability measures have changed the methods and strategies used in teaching special education students (Nunn et al., 2009; Stivers et al., 2008), school districts in the United States are placing many students with disabilities into general education classrooms with support from special education teachers. In the 2013–2014 school year, six- to 21-year-old students with disabilities enrolled in public schools were served 80% of the time in general education classrooms (NCES, 2016). Research and improvement of instructional practices and tools are needed to identify effective ways to promote learning for these students.

Inclusion and differentiation

Students with disabilities represent the digital native generation with limited abilities to focus and concentrate on typical teaching methods and strategies. More students are being identified as having Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Students have been characterized as having racecar brains with bicycle breaks regarding their learning styles. The fast-paced lessons of inclusion classrooms pose difficulties for these students in processing and storing information into short- and long-term memory locations of the brain. The inclusion philosophy supports the critical social science theory in that students are challenged to look beyond current achievement practices and make efforts to improve and change (Davidson et al., 2008). Brunvand and Byrd (2011) emphasized the efforts teachers make in engaging and motivating these special education students deemed to be at risk and in need of technological accommodations to be successful in the general education classroom setting.

Inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom is the proper placement for each student with a disability only if inclusion meets each student’s needs. Teachers have an innate desire to correct problems or find solutions to educational barriers rather than “alter the teaching and learning process” (Baglieri et al., 2011: 272) to differentiate instruction for students with disabilities. Baglieri et al. (2011) noted the concerns of educating students with disabilities in a coteaching inclusion model classroom are still considered a separate entity rather than a collaborative effort. General education teachers work with special education teachers to adapt curriculum and procedures to accommodate the individual needs of included students placed in their classrooms; however, general education teachers are also charged with meeting the needs of nondisabled students. Providing general education teachers tools to use with all students in their classrooms is crucial. Using technology such as Vocaroo, QR Codes, Screencast-O-Matic, Plickers, Storybird, and Kahoot can merge general education and special education collaborative efforts.

Academic collaborative success

Pollock (2007) discussed four concepts for teachers to use to improve the academic success of students. First, provide students with a clearly communicated curriculum taught in an explicit and specific manner. Second, employ use of a clearly expressed lesson plans to include formative and summative assessments delivered in a purposeful manner. Third, collect data through varied assessments and progress monitoring to drive instructional decisions. Last, provide students feedback based on a comparison of goals, benchmarks, and standards met to student expectations. Students acquire knowledge only from the information directly taught them; however, a huge gap remains between teaching and assessment (Schmoker, 2006). Teaching should foster understanding by forming active connections using reflection, reconsideration, and revision of the information presented rather than simply a concentration on the mastery through the assessment process (Schwartz, 2006).

Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) discussed the six features of understanding: describing, deciphering, implementing, framing, sympathizing, and knowing oneself. Teachers need to provide students classroom experiences and occasions to apply and synthesize learning in meaningful and purposeful ways (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006). Instruction needs to be shared between teacher-led guidance and student construction and exploration of meaning during a gradual release method of delivery (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006).

Student understanding of content skills and lessons should be examined thoroughly in implemented and achieved curricula. Teachers must reflect, review, and revise instructional lessons continuously based upon the learning outcomes occurring among students. “When teachers fail to plan, they plan to fail” (Chapman and King, 2003: 11). Ineffective classrooms are characterized by ineffective teachers who fail to recognize student needs, fail to implement an effective learning environment, fail to understand course content, and fail to teach course content effectively (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006).

Training must include instructor-led group learning. Bary and Rees (2006) insisted effective learning is collaborative and occurs while engaged in an active process. Teachers are using more technology to present information to students. PowerPoints and interactive white boards are high-tech infrastructure methods teachers now use in classrooms. Students, however, are still required to produce the same types of paper and pencil assignments for assessment purposes. Some students with disabilities have difficulty transferring knowledge from their brains to paper. Accommodations for students with disabilities, such as extended time and small group settings, are often used. When students with disabilities are eligible for an accommodation, a scribe can be provided to write the students’ thoughts. Some students can produce an electronic assignment or project to show mastery of concepts learned. Other students can demonstrate their knowledge of concepts and topics by using another one of Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences rather than using the traditional pencil and paper delivery methods.

Accommodating with technology

Accommodations, differentiated instruction, and individualized instruction for students with disabilities can be provided easily using technology. These same tools can be used to enhance the learning of general education students as well without causing any additional work for the general education, inclusion teacher. Using tools such as Quick Response (QR) Codes will provide the opportunity for the teacher to have small groups of students engage in independent center activities rather than repeating instructions. Using Plickers can provide individual assessment data for the teacher without calling attention to a student’s lack of knowledge when asked questions during a review after whole group instruction. These data can be used for flexible grouping of remediation skills. Likewise, Screencast-O-Matic provides the teacher with a visual representation to teach a skill and reteach the skill for students needing it. Screencast-O-Matic also provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate ability to acquire a skill or learn a lesson. Screencast-O-Matic can be used by teachers and students. Other technology tools are shared in detail throughout the remaining article sections to enable teachers to implement them immediately into classroom practices.

Differentiated instruction information

The primary purpose of differentiated instruction is to meet the needs of all learners and to maximize the learning capacity of all students’ abilities. Teachers raise levels of expectations while providing varied levels of support throughout the teaching and learning process. Five key elements of differentiated instruction linked together are learning environment, curriculum, assessment instruction, classroom leadership, and classroom management. Teachers respond to each learner’s need by providing a supportive learning environment with high quality curriculum and instruction. Teachers must use assessment to inform and guide instruction and learning activities to account for student variance. The learning environment needs a strong leader using appropriate classroom management routines and systems (Tomlinson, 2001).

All differentiation is related to a student’s readiness or ability level, interests, and learning profiles or preferred methods to approaching learning activities. Some learners are better using visual skills, auditory skills, or blended skills. Teachers should present lessons in a variety of methods and allow students to access materials using those methods. Instructional strategies can include learning centers, graphic organizers, scaffolded reading/writing, and tiered assignments. Good teaching using best practices, planning classroom instruction, and employing appropriate disciplinary measures and classroom management procedures is a much better experience than using a great program and not knowing how to teach it or work with students (Tomlinson, 2001).

Information literacy involves the abilities people have to search, locate, evaluate, comprehend, use, and apply erudition to daily living and working experiences. Bruce (2002: 2) described information literacy as “the personal empowerment learners engage in when independently pursuing lifelong learning.” The more a learner knows and can apply the knowledge learned, the more power the learner has in making life decisions. Knowledge can no longer just be the ability to know information such as facts and trivia; students have to be scholars able to apply this knowledge to daily life. Learners must be more judgmental of the information located and received. Learners need to consider whether the information is factual and useful to their current situation. The goal of every teacher is to “transform dependent learners into independent, self –directed, lifelong learners” (Bruce, 2002, para. 16).

Bruce (2002) suggested a best practices approach to creating a more informational literate society. Teachers with learning-centered programs should realize information literacy is imperative to the learning process, be student guided to reflect on what has been learned, be collaboratively implemented, and be partnered with other community organizations. By allowing students some choice in what they will learn, students will make more connections and see more relevance in lessons presented.

Technology implementation in the teaching and learning environment was mandated by adoption of The National Technology Plan (USDOE, 2010). Professional, pedagogical, teaching standards now include technology. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and the International Society for Technology in Education (2002) developed the National Educational Technology Standards for Teaching. Creation of these standards emphasizes the importance of implementing various digital, educational experiences and assessments for students to assist students in acquiring knowledge and skills using diverse methods and strategies to reach their potential (Benton-Borghi, 2013).

According to the Division for Early Childhood of the Council of Exceptional Children, young children with disabilities having access to technology within the general education classroom have shown improvements in the areas of quality of life, general understanding, academics, behavior, and overall developmental skills and abilities (More and Travers, 2012). Not all schools or teachers have technology available for students to use. All teachers are not comfortable in using technology. Further research is necessary to support the technological applications for educational use in the classrooms for early childhood professionals adopting these technologies to be efficient in useful implementation without problems (More and Travers, 2012). As technology innovations improve, teachers require guidance in choosing and using appropriate technologies for students with disabilities.

The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework philosophy provides equitable and equal access for all students. Particular characteristics of the UDL framework include equity, flexibility, simplicity, error tolerance, information perception, and low physical access. Each of these characteristics provides a perfect fit with technological tools, software programs, and applications to meet the needs of students with disabilities’ unique learning requirements in order to be successful in the general education classroom (More and Travers, 2012). Technological accommodations would provide a learning environment equitable and accessible for students with disabilities while allowing students to feel independent.

The premise behind the UDL framework believes that all students can learn and teachers should plan and prepare for each individual difference of the diverse classroom (Baglieri et al., 2011). UDL and differentiated instruction practices share the same ideology; diverse students can achieve academic success through modifications of content, products, and processes (Baglieri et al., 2011). Technology is one way in which teachers can accommodate the needs of the special education student using the UDL framework and differentiated instructional methods in the inclusion classroom.

Accommodations

Special education students do not perform at the same academic levels as their peers who have no disability, and even with accommodations, special education students have extreme difficulties in achieving and meeting grade-level state-assessed standards. Students with disabilities are allowed to have classroom and testing accommodations to provide learning support in addressing skill deficits. Accommodations are defined as modifications such as “changing the topic, product, activities, or feedback checklist without lowering or changing the standard” (Hammeken, 2000: 180). Small group instruction and testing provide students with the ability to focus and pay more attention to lessons while not feeling compelled to compete with peers to finish the assignment quickly. Extended time provides students with the time needed to process the tasks and assignments and to read and reread them to complete them correctly. Students with disabilities have difficulties in reading and processing the information; therefore, the extended time accommodation is necessary for special education students to reading and process the information in the assignments. The read aloud accommodation provides language impaired students the option of hearing the information in the content areas of mathematics and science read out loud. Hearing this information provides these students the opportunity to process information without having to decode the information.

Technology tools

Various technology tools are used in the general education classroom to provide students with disabilities accommodated learning strategies and activities. Technology programs offer the same aspects and characteristics of self-directed learning (Lawler and King, 2000; Maehl, 2000). These features include being interactive, motivational, autonomous and providing immediate feedback, review, retention, engagement, and practical applications to current and future learning experiences. Technology tools to accommodate and differentiate for students with disabilities include using Vocaroo, QR Codes, Plickers, Screencast-O-Matic, Padlet, Storybird, Bookshare, Bubbl.us, Kahoot, and Newsela. Innovative and engaging technology software programs, websites, and assistive tools promote the scaffolded and differentiated learning activities needed for academic success of the student with disabilities (Brunvand and Byrd, 2011).

Vocaroo

Vocaroo is a website allowing teachers to record audio instructions digitally for the QR Codes being used in all the activities from spelling tests, learning centers, and motivational praise posters for students to use throughout the day. The important aspect of using Vocaroo is the ability for a teacher to review audio recording prior to printing QR Codes. No limitation on the amount of recordings to be made exists when speaking. Vocaroo is adaptable to meet the needs of the teacher. Using Vocaroo allows teachers to be able verbally and visually to make the QR Codes to use in accommodating the learning needs of the special education student (Charles and Dickens, 2012).

Vocaroo allows students with disabilities to make QR Codes to communicate personal responses for wants, needs, and participation in class activities. Students with disabilities in a moderate to severe classroom can use QR Codes generated by Vocaroo for multiple content area responses generated by the teacher for the students to be active participants in all settings throughout the school. When both the general education and the special education teacher collaborate to establish the QR Codes for students to scan and be able to respond to questions everyone wins in the inclusion classroom (Charles and Dickens, 2012).

QR Codes

QR Codes are a type of matrix barcode readable by mobile phones used to store website URLs, plain text, phone numbers, email addresses, and many other types of information (Siegle, 2015). Codes can be used in classrooms to engage students in multiple literacy and mathematical QR activities such as learning centers and spelling tests; to provide assignment directions and vocabulary instructions; and to give motivational praise and attention to students. Learning center coded activities are enhanced to accommodate students with disabilities by using QR Codes to provide students scanning and listening instructions to use repeatedly until understood without disturbing the teacher during small group instruction. Read aloud stories are enhanced by inserting QR Codes supporting specific vocabulary words with their meanings. Students can scan these bar codes, hear the appropriate pronunciations of the words, and listen to word meanings.

Teachers’ schedules are full, and when students are absent on spelling test day, giving the makeup test upon their return adds an additional task to their list of things to do. Using QR Codes in giving a spelling test for a student with disabilities allows the teacher to continue with the daily schedule and provide accommodations for the student at the same time. The spelling test with QR Codes gives the student the opportunity to scan the word, listen to the word and a sentence using the word multiple times, and take the test with as much extended time as needed.

Providing testing accommodations for students using QR Codes is an option for teachers. Students can have math and science assessments directions, word problems, and questions requiring reading accommodations placed on QR, so students can work at their own pace. Using QR Codes assists students in learning to work independently.

Motivating and praising students is necessary in making behavioral changes with emotional and behaviorally challenged students. Posted QR Codes using numbers, shapes, or symbols provide students with needed physical movement, the motivation to use technology, and a “cool method” of receiving praise by scanning a randomly selected QR Code for a prerecorded statement. To a student with disabilities, receiving technology praise in this manner is more rewarding than receiving verbal praise.

Plickers

Plickers is a paper-, web-, and app-based software program permitting teachers to assess students’ knowledge in all content areas. Plickers allows a teacher to poll the class without cost or need for student devices. A teacher furnishes each student a card (a “paper clicker” (Plicker)) and uses an iPhone to scan the students’ Plicker to do instant checks for understanding, exit tickets, and impromptu polls (Tolbert, 2017). Using Plickers allows the teacher to perform a formative assessment and gather individual data to drive instruction without drawing specific attention to the student with disabilities when the student does not know the answers to the questions (Tolbert, 2017). During the question and answer responding sessions, the teacher can show the correct response and the group data without displaying individual responses. This process provides immediate feedback to students to correct their thinking, as the assessment process is continued throughout the instructional delivery portion of the planned daily activities.

Teachers using Plickers gather formative assessment data on all student responses (Tolbert, 2017). A database collects and records the responses for the teacher to analyze. This information helps the teacher guide instruction; make flexible grouping decisions; provide progress-monitoring reports; and inform parents, other teachers, and administrators of academic progress or regression for eligibility decisions. The data gained from Plickers are invaluable for each individual student’s academic success plan.

Opportunities to respond using Plickers in classrooms provide students with disabilities the chance to participate with a feeling of anonymity. The paper Plicker provides the student’s answer in a private voice without calling attention to them if their response is incorrect. Only the teacher knows if the response is incorrect. The privacy settings in the app can be set up so the students are hidden and the data are only provided to the teacher. Only the teacher needs the data from the questions for small group instructional review.

Screencast-O-matic

Screencast-O-Matic is a website tool providing teachers the opportunity to video and publish information in audio, video, or both formats. Screencast-O-Matic is a handy tool for recording screenshots and sharing them with friends or colleagues for a number of different purposes. With just a few clicks, the screen can be recorded, and once satisfied with the video, the video can be uploaded. Providing students with recorded videos assists students in viewing materials and resources multiple times and in offering the option to stop and start recordings when needed for note-taking purposes. Teachers can use this program to allow students to make a video demonstrating their understanding of the topic, after which teachers may assess students’ ability to demonstrate comprehension of the topic, to employ creativity in expressing topic ideas, to work collaboratively with others, and to apply other variables of the assignment deemed necessary. Parents can use the resources provided by teachers to assist students with homework and to promote understanding through practice. Teachers and parents can work together to assist students in making academic progress by using the Screencast-O-Matic program at home and at school.

Students with disabilities can use Screencast-O-Matic as a video or audio project-publishing tool to demonstrate their knowledge and abilities (Edyburn, 2011). This particular tool provides an opportunity to use a voice over a PowerPoint while incorporating other features throughout the presentation. Students with disabilities such as speech articulations have the option of creating presentations while working with specialists and resetting or redoing the project as many times as necessary until satisfied with the result and not being embarrassed in front of nondisabled peers.

Padlet

Padlet is a website allowing collaboration among students (Dunbar, 2017). Padlet is an easy way to create and collaborate in the classroom, at work, and at home. Padlet works like a piece of paper in which a blank screen is provided on which the student can place whatever is needed. Students can edit with videos on the collaborative screen together with images and documents and create something beautiful. Using Padlet allows teachers to provide an alternative for students to communicate, collaborate, and produce academic work in various content areas (Dunbar, 2017). Students with disabilities respond using technology with options available in a positive manner. Teachers can assess students’ ability to work collaboratively with others, their understanding of the topic by the answers they provide to the prompt, the creativity used when responding to the questions, and their ability to present ideas using the program (Dunbar, 2017).

The collaborative nature of Padlet provides students with disabilities the ability to work with their nondisabled peers on writing projects by not requiring actual paper and pen. The technology-based Padlet includes the ability to add pictures, text boxes, and videos as well as the capability to share information between classrooms and home. Students with disabilities can have additional service providers such as paraprofessionals, resource teachers, and speech language pathologists assist in these learning projects coinciding with their IEP learning goals. Padlet is a collaborative tool useful in and between general education and special education classrooms.

Storybird

Storybird is a free online language arts and reading website inspiring millions of students to read and write creative, professional stories (Olthouse and Miller, 2012). Teachers can set up classes to assign specific books for specific students to read. Books are arranged by new and noted, ages, recently added, popular for the week, popular of all time, categorically in various formats (Olthouse and Miller, 2012). Users can write comments about the books read and interact with others who read the book. Students can create their own cards, books, and poetry using the artwork provided.

Teachers can share this site with parents to help students improve reading skills at home. Motivating students to read begins with finding books of interest. Storybird offers stories of multiple interests for students of all ages and all reading abilities. Teachers can review and assess students’ time on site reading, types of stories read, creativity in the writing section, and published works. These tools will assist teachers in understanding students better when planning and individualizing instruction.

Students with varying learning abilities and disabilities have difficulty with creating and writing stories. Using Storybird allows these students to create the visual images of the idea for the story first using the preexisting graphics online to help generate the written information for the chosen pictures of the storyline. These pictures drive the brainstorming and development of the writing process.

Storybird also provides students with reading difficulties various genres and levels of stories to read online. Online books provide students access to read using tables, smartphones, or computers from any Internet connection. The more a student practices reading, the faster the reading skills will improve.

Bookshare

Bookshare is an accessible online library for people with print disabilities (Newton and Dell, 2009). Students with visual impairments, physical disabilities, or severe learning disabilities who cannot read traditional print books can benefit from Bookshare (Newton and Dell, 2009). The formats provided for accessibility for people with these disabilities include hearing the books read and seeing the words highlighted on the screen, reading the books with digital braille or enlarged fonts, creating stories with physical braille or large print, or reading books directly on the Internet. To qualify for Bookshare, an expert must confirm the student or person in need has a print disability preventing the person from being able to access traditional formatted books.

The Office of Special Education Programs at the U.S. Department of Education with a five-year, $32 million-dollar grant began the Bookshare program to provide equal accessibility for students with low vision to have availability to digital reading content (Newton and Dell, 2009). Bookshare provides equitable access for all students to all reading and curriculum materials. Students with all disabilities have access to digital curriculum materials through the Bookshare program.

Bubbl.us

Many special education students have difficulty planning, mapping, or webbing their ideas for a writing assignment. These students do not comprehend topic-share commonalities; they are unable to make connections. Teachers can use Bubbl.us to demonstrate the concept of webbing and mapping ideas during the prewriting or planning stage of the writing process to bridge connections. Bubbl.us is a no cost, easy to use, brainstorming website that allows teachers, students, and parents to create tools visually and use the technology tools to mind map topics (Stair, 2013). Students with disabilities are better able to see the connections between teacher and parent bubbles and their own bubbles. Adding text and changing colors is another feature of this site which enables students with disabilities to be organized and understand elements of mind mapping and brainstorming (Stair, 2013). Using this tool to help students plan for writing will assist students in perceiving the connections to the structure of the writing process.

Brainstorming is a process students with disabilities who have difficulty comprehending and making the connections between concepts can use. The visual color coding provided by the website of bubbl.us allows students to see the levels of those mapped connections. The hierarchical structure of the mind maps used on the bubbl.us website removes the guessing and uncertainty from students’ comprehension level.

Kahoot

Kahoot is another no cost website tool available for teachers to use as a review tool or an assessment tool with students preparing for a test. Students see the tool as a game rather than as an assessment tool. Teachers can create a quiz, a discussion, or a survey. Kahoot questions are limited to 95 characters, and the answers are limited to 60 characters. Students respond using iPhones, android phones, or computers (Johns, 2015). Kahoot is a competitive, fast-paced game in which the faster the student responds to the questions, the more points the student earns. Kahoot can be shared or made public on the website to enable students to visit and review the questions and answers as often as needed when studying prior to testing (Johns, 2015). Teachers use this tool as a way to engage students in assessing areas learned versus areas needing more instruction based upon correct and incorrect responses. This tool also allows discussions between the teacher and each student related to differences of opinion.

Kahoot can be used by students with disabilities in studying for a test. This review provides students with the opportunity to see the questions and correct answers multiple times, therefore providing them the chance to self-assess their own understanding and knowledge with each time they play the game. The Kahoot game can be varied with a response time from 5 to 120 s (2 min). This variability allows students with disabilities processing time for the question and the answers. Reading the question takes time, and processing the answers to the question takes time for students with disabilities. Providing up to 2 min per question allows processing time.

Newsela

Special education teachers have difficulty finding leveled, reading material related to social studies, science, and other nonfiction content areas. Newsela, a nonfiction, article-providing website, provides nonfiction reading-leveled material for students with reading difficulties. Teachers can assign students a specific article to read, and the students can choose the appropriate reading level of that specific article to read (Marshall, 2016). Students also take a quiz on the article read to provide the teacher with information concerning their comprehension abilities (Marshall, 2016). The leveled reading articles provided by Newsela also can be accessed at home thereby allowing parents to assist their child in improving reading skills in the nonfiction genre to help prepare the child for the state reading assessment.

Reading ability levels on Newsela provide students with reading difficulties the same reading articles with the same content information to enable each student unique differentiation. Students are also not embarrassed by the look of the different readability levels of the articles. All articles have the same font, size, and pictures; the differences are the vocabulary and words used within the explanation of the content.

Conclusion

Students with disabilities have difficulties in meeting the standards of general education classroom expectations. Technology helps to provide differentiated instructional strategies and engaging activities to meet students’ specialized needs. Providing students with disabilities options of choice to demonstrate their knowledge assists in the differentiation process for the teacher. Academic success of every student in the inclusion classroom depends upon the preparedness of the general education teacher and the support services provided by the special education teacher. Teachers using technological tools such as Vocaroo, QR Codes, Plickers, Screencast-O-Matic, Padlet, Storybird, Bookshare, Bubbl.us, Kahoot, and Newsela can assist included students with disabilities in the general education classroom demonstrate understanding of content subject areas and actively engage and participate in their own learning.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jamie Mahoney is an assistant professor in the Adolescent, Career, and Special Education Department at Murray State University. She teaches Special Education courses for dual certification Learning Behavior Disorder/ Elementary or Middle School undergraduate students and graduate students in the Alt. Cert, Master LBD, and Moderate Severe Disabilities programs. She has taught students with various disabilities in the areas of math, reading, and language arts for over 20 years in the elementary public school setting. She is certified in the areas of special education, general education, reading endorsed, assistive technology certified, and educational leadership certified. Her research interests include preparing preservice and inservice teachers to effectively teach students of all abilities using differentiated instruction methods, response to intervention and progress monitoring, increasing student engagement using technology, collaboration and co-teaching methods, and assessment methodologies.

Carol Hall, Ed. D. is a member of the University of Phoenix School of Advanced Studies Online faculty who serves as EdD Lead Area Chair for K-12 Education, subject matter expert, EdD and Residency instructor, Residency Academic Lead, and a dissertation committee member. She is a certified Advanced Facilitator with many years experience in teaching and administering in public, private, and parochial elementary schools and in higher education. She received a Doctorate in Educational Administration from Baylor University. She obtained her master's degree from Texas Woman's University, and her undergraduate degree was earned at Centenary College of Louisiana.

References

Baglieri

Valle

Connor

et al . (2011) Disability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education 32(4): 267–278.

Bary

and Rees

(2006) Is self-directed learning the key sill for tomorrow’s engineers? European Journal of Engineering Education 31(1): 73–81.

Benton-Borghi

(2013) A universally designed for learning (UDL) infused technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) practitioners’ model essential for teacher preparation in the 21st century. Journal of Educational Computing Research 48(2): 245–265.

Bruce

(2002) Information literacy as a catalyst for educational change: A background paper. In: Danahar P (ed) Lifelong Learning: Whose Responsibility and What is Your Contribution?: Proceedings of the 3rd International Lifelong Learning Conference. Yeppoon: Queensland University of Technology, pp.8–19. Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/4977/1/4977_1.pdf (accessed 15 August 2016).

Brunvand

and Byrd

(2011) Using voice thread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children 43(4): 28–37.

Chapman

and King

(2003) Differentiated Instructional Strategies for Reading in the Content Areas. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Charles

and Dickens

(2012) Closing the communication gap: Web 2.0 tools for enhanced planning and collaboration. Council for Exceptional Children 45(2): 24–32.

Davidson

Demaray

Malecki

et al . (2008) United States and Finnish adolescents’ perceptions of social support: A cross-cultural analysis. School Psychology International 29(3): 363–375.

Dunbar

(2017) Using padlet to increase student interaction with music concepts. General Music Today 30(3): 26–29.

10.

Edyburn

(2011) research protocols that involve training: Research and practice. Journal of Special Education Technology 26(2): 61–65. Developing

11.

Hammeken

(2000) Inclusion: 450 Strategies for Success. Minnetonka, MN: Peytral Publications.

12.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2002) National education technology standards for teachers. Available at: http://www/iste/org (accessed 21 June 2016).

13.

Johns

(2015) Engaging and assessing students with technology: A review of Kahoot. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 81(4): 89–91.

14.

Lawler

and King

(2000) Refocusing faculty development: The view from an adult learning perspective. Available at: http://www.adulterc.org/Proceedings/2000/lawlerp%26kingk-final.PDF (accessed on 25 June 2016).

15.

Maehl

(2000) Lifelong Learning at Its Best. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

16.

Marshall

(2016) Rethinking differentiation: Using teacher’s time most effectively. Kappan 98(1): 8–13.

17.

and Travers

(2012) What’s app with that? Young Exceptional Children 16(2): 15–32.

18.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2016) Children and youth with disabilities. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp (accessed on 15 November 2016).

19.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (2008) Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions. Washington, DC: Author.

20.

Newton

and Dell

(2009) Bookshare.org: Accessible texts for students with print disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology 24(2): 38–41.

21.

Nunn

Jantz

and Butikofer

(2009) Concurrent validity between teacher efficacy and perceptions of response to intervention outcomes. Journal of Instructional Psychology 36(3): 215–218.

22.

Olthouse

and Miller

(2012) Teaching talented writers with web 2.0 tools. Teaching Exceptional Children 45(2): 6–14.

23.

Pollock

(2007) Improving Student Learning One Teacher at a Time. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

24.

Schmoker

(2006) Results Now. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

25.

Schwartz

(2006) For whom do we write the curriculum? Journal of Curriculum Studies 38(4): 449–457.

26.

Siegle

(2015) Using QR Codes to differentiate learning for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Today 38(1): 63–66.

27.

Stair

(2013) Bubbl.us-web 20 mind mapping. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching 4(8): 1.

28.

Stivers

Francis-Cropper

and Straus

(2008) Educating families about inclusive education. Intervention in School and Clinic 44(1): 10–17.

29.

Tolbert

JBL

(2017) Foreign language assessment: Instructional considerations for students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 8(3): 441–446.

30.

Tomlinson

(2001) How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

31.